Mike Palij wrote: > >> Historians are much more likely to circle around a topic >> for a little while, exploring its nooks and crannies (perhaps >> this is why the book, rather than the journal article, is still >> the preferred vehicle of historians and other humanists). >> > > Thank you clearing this up for me. I thought going the book > publishing route for academics was to avoid having to face > peer review prior to publication. As with Herrnstein & > Murray's "The Bell Curve", sometimes it's better to just > put a book out and deal with the criticism afterwards because > it is possible that the prior peer review would point out that > the book is a piece of trash, to put it nicely. >
You are mistaken if you believe that scholarly books are not peer reviewed. Peer reviewers for history books are every bit as rigorous as journal reviewers, probably more so because journal articles are considered by humanists to be (more or less) "dry runs" for chapter in an eventual book . As for H&M, that book was published by Free Press, hardly a well-respected scholarly press. Maybe that's why one finds all that junk in the "psychology" section in books stores -- psychologists can't tell scholarly publishers from trade publishers. :-) Chris -- Christopher D. Green Department of Psychology York University Toronto, ON M3J 1P3 Canada 416-736-2100 ex. 66164 chri...@yorku.ca http://www.yorku.ca/christo/ ========================== --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
